Established method to enable suid scripts?

[Chris Telting]

On 05/13/2011 14:34, Alejandro Imass wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Chris Telting
> <christopher-ml at telting.org>  wrote:
>> On 05/13/2011 01:32, krad wrote:
> [...]
>> me ask you.. is "sudo ping" acceptable? Please explain the logical reason
>> why not. It would be the preferred method if suid didn't exist and sudo was
>> part of the base system.
> The sudo versus suid theme is discussed ad-nauseam in many lists and
> forums, as well as the C wrappers for doing stuff suid.
> IMHO, however, sudo can give you more granular control though
> paradoxically relies on suid itself.
> The question here is why make the whole freaking interpreter suid when
> you can granularly control the specific script.
> Anyway, I would personally use a wrapper or sudo.
I honestly tried when I posted the question to avoid the question of 
right or wrong. I simply have one opinion for my own need and preference 
and don't want to go into rigid detail and did not mean to reopen the 
issue. I simply wanted to know if anyone had a patch already or a flag 
enabled it.  It's similar to the phrase that if  you have to ask you 
can't afford it except in this case it means you can. I have a feeling 
someone somewhere did it. If no one comes forward I will post a proper 
patch for review and maintain documentation of the pitfalls to the 
extent I can and that others forward to me.  I have no desire to change 
Freebsd's standard practice. I leave that to the steering committee of 
each and every distribution of unix like systems. I am simply grateful 
to be able to make my development systems work the way I want it to 
because I want it to. It's a question of complete phylosophy to me as to 
the base unix permissions system. I simply know what appeals most to me 
the way that I use systems.  We all love Freebsd because it means 
choice.  I apologize to anyone that thinks I reopened a can of worms and 
wasted time, it was not my goal.